The problems aren't the tools we use to hurt ourselves, merely that we have a systematic breakdown of society that prevents us from recognizing the difference between WHAT we are doing vs WHY we are doing it.

This young man committed violence on not only himself. but another human being. That is what needs to be addressed. Not the fact that he used a lump of metal to do so.

Was the announcer wrong? I would say he had a national pulpit to make his statement from. I don't agree with his words, but he's got stones to say it so bluntly on a national stage. I just wish that he would have gotten to the root of the people instead of beating the same old tired drum.

... One of a very, very small number of NFL starting players, just yeserday, shot his child's mother dead in cold blood, then drove to the practice facility and home of his employer, an NFL team, and shot himself in front of a front office man and the team's head coach.

So, whether or not I agree with Costas, I'd say this was as good as any time to bring this up.

puffy999:So, whether or not I agree with Costas, I'd say this was as good as any time to bring this up.

Alright then. Why did he blame the gun? Christ Benoit proved that a roided up strongman needs no weapons to kill his wife and himself. Why not address the issue of concussion-causing brain damage rampant in the NFL? Why not the media's, including NBC's, role in perpetuating and glorifying the "gun culture"? Why take the simpleton's route of blaming the gun for the action of the man?

Some people have a big problem with having a political agenda pushed down their throats during a football game. The problem isn't with the misguided beliefs but with the stage on which they were espoused.

It's no different than a politician going on tv and saying abortion is wrong. Every other show on tv made some sort of comment about it, he was told to say something and he spoke his mind. You don't like what he has to say? Who cares, you're watching grown men run into each other while fighting over a ball. Get over it.

naptapper:Some people have a big problem with having a political agenda pushed down their throats during a football game. The problem isn't with the misguided beliefs but with the stage on which they were espoused.

Gun ownership? Nothing wrong with it. I have no issues with the legality of any weapons.

Glorifying gun ownership, however, is ridiculous. You can show a guy getting shot in the farking head on network TV but you can't show a bare female breast without getting fined. You can't say "fark" on a talk show, but we can have 25 cop shows, 10 war movies and a million ads for a first-person shooter video game. There's like 100 reality shows about guns, gun owners, gun range visitors, gun inventors, shooting guns, bigger guns, better guns, guns that haven't been invented yet but seem like a cool idea...

That part, I think, is the problem - not the fact that you can legally own one. Glorification of weapons is usually kinda silly IMO when in moderate amounts. We're saturated with violence to the point that we become desensitized to it when we see it and defensive of anything we perceive may be a threat to our right to inflict it.

It's a combination of factors, not the least of which is the psychological crutch that "oh, because bad guys are out there and they may have guns, we must all own guns to protect ourselves!" -- Never mind that you instantaneously become far more likely to have an accident or deliberate criminal action happen with that actual gun you bought to "protect" yourself than to be the victim of homicide from the hypothetical one you use to justify the purchase.

I think all drugs should be legal, too - but I don't think everyone should run out and buy some heroin, nor do I think we need ads for them on TV. If you need a gun, or think you need a gun, you're going to get a gun anyway. Maybe if we didn't get such a boner for Jack Bauer and Call of Duty the whole "gun culture" problem wouldn't exist but whatever -- I'm a 24 fan myself, so I choose to blame media as a whole for flooding the market with it. I know, no personal responsibility, shock right? heh... but that's the thing -- I'm FOR gun ownership, just not in favor of making gun use/ownership seem like it's "cool" or whatever the children call it these days.

Frank N Stein:puffy999: So, whether or not I agree with Costas, I'd say this was as good as any time to bring this up.

Alright then. Why did he blame the gun? Christ Benoit proved that a roided up strongman needs no weapons to kill his wife and himself. Why not address the issue of concussion-causing brain damage rampant in the NFL? Why not the media's, including NBC's, role in perpetuating and glorifying the "gun culture"? Why take the simpleton's route of blaming the gun for the action of the man?

naptapper:Some people have a big problem with having a political agenda pushed down their throats during a football game. The problem isn't with the misguided beliefs but with the stage on which they were espoused.

It wasn't being pushed down their throats during the game; saying that implies, to me, that Michaels and Collinsworth got on a soapbox and were quoting Whitlock while neglecting their play-by-play and color-commentary duties. Halftime is different. I think making a social commentary during halftime of one of the most widely watched TV programs and thereby sparking debate is something to be applauded. The other pre- and postgame shows (Fox, CBS) are basically mindless, worthless drivel that does nothing but promote the NFL and its players. I also think that everyone should calm the fark down and stop being so defensive, regardless of which side of the argument you're on.

Ok, being a Canuckistani, who owns no guns, may I make the following suggestion. Granted that I'm sure that it probably wouldn't have helped in this case.

Require people to take a gun safety course when they first decide to purchase a weapon, and pass, a la a licensing exam. As part of said course, have a portion (say an hour of a weekend long course in my view) where people are told how to recognize situations where their judgment can be clouded and how to get out of or defuse those situations.

From my cultural viewpoint, you guys take guns to an extreme. In terms of gun ownership and use you guys are waaaaayyyy ahead of most of the western world. Sadly crimes where guns are invioved are much more common. Access can correlate almost directly with use, just like places with lots of cars have lots of accidents.

You guys have fun with trying to come up with an answer on that issue. I'm glad that here in Canada, it's much more rare that I hear about gun violence.

thegod082:naptapper: Some people have a big problem with having a political agenda pushed down their throats during a football game. The problem isn't with the misguided beliefs but with the stage on which they were espoused.

It wasn't being pushed down their throats during the game; saying that implies, to me, that Michaels and Collinsworth got on a soapbox and were quoting Whitlock while neglecting their play-by-play and color-commentary duties. Halftime is different. I think making a social commentary during halftime of one of the most widely watched TV programs and thereby sparking debate is something to be applauded. The other pre- and postgame shows (Fox, CBS) are basically mindless, worthless drivel that does nothing but promote the NFL and its players. I also think that everyone should calm the fark down and stop being so defensive, regardless of which side of the argument you're on.

Oh, OK - so it's fine with you if anyone spouts off anything as long as it's not actually during the game. Hmm. So if someone who is deeply religious, say Tim Tebow for example, got on a halftime show and told people how they were going to Hell, that would be OK with you?

It's all about the time and place. I don't want to be preached to by anyone when I'm watching a farking pastime.

Frank N Stein:you are a puppet: You didn't ask me any questions. And whatever your questions are, you aren't entitled to any answers until you can better explain what NBC's agenda is and who is behind it.

Their agenda is an anti-gun one, apparently. I don't know who's behind it, but I'm willing to bet the speech was vetted and approved by the company he works for.

And yes, I did ask you for citation or rationale to your claim that every other western nation knows that people do not need handguns.

mediablitz:This tired fallacy is a staple of those unwilling to discuss rampant gun violence in the United States.

I live in Chicago, one of the most gun-violent cities in America. For 30 years there was a handgun ban, and gun crime continued to rise. Recently, handgun bans were found unconstitutional, therefore the city had to allow them, although the permits are very difficult to get. Murders have gone down a bit, but again Chicago is still one of the most gun violent places.

Representative of the unwashed masses:Ok, being a Canuckistani, who owns no guns, may I make the following suggestion. Granted that I'm sure that it probably wouldn't have helped in this case.

Require people to take a gun safety course when they first decide to purchase a weapon, and pass, a la a licensing exam. As part of said course, have a portion (say an hour of a weekend long course in my view) where people are told how to recognize situations where their judgment can be clouded and how to get out of or defuse those situations.

From my cultural viewpoint, you guys take guns to an extreme. In terms of gun ownership and use you guys are waaaaayyyy ahead of most of the western world. Sadly crimes where guns are invioved are much more common. Access can correlate almost directly with use, just like places with lots of cars have lots of accidents.

You guys have fun with trying to come up with an answer on that issue. I'm glad that here in Canada, it's much more rare that I hear about gun violence.